Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review

Two years after Nikon shook up the high-end DSLR market with the 36MP D800 and D800E, it consolidated the 800-series with the release of a new camera, the D810. The D810 replaced both previous 800-series models, and took the D800E's 'AA filter cancellation' trick one step further by dispensing with an AA filter entirely. As of May 2016, the D810 is available for $2,796.95.

Anti-aliasing filter aside, the D810 is not by any means a reinvention of the popular D800/E concept, but the handful of major changes do make the new camera more capable than its predecessors. The D800/E were known for their massive Raw dynamic range, and the D810's ISO 64 mode improves on this. An electronic front curtain shutter guarantees sharp images in Mup mode, and the redesigned mirror mechanism reduces image-softening mirror slap. Continuous AF algorithms have been refined.

These and many other changes make the camera more attractive to potential buyers who have been weighing up whether or not to jump into full-frame. The D810 isn't a camera that you should necessarily sell your D800 or D800E for, but it's a better camera than both older models in almost every respect.

D800 and D800E: Two become one...

In testing, we found that the practical difference in raw detail reproduction between the D800 and D800E was minimal except in a very narrow range of circumstances - specifically, tripod-mounted short shutter duration shooting at wide apertures with prime lenses.

As such, if two models must be consolidated into one, it makes sense for that single model to offer the highest possible resolution, at the risk of increased moiré. One area in particular the D800 fell behind was in JPEG detail: D800E JPEGs looked far sharper, and it wasn't just due to the OLPF differences. Thankfully, our studio testing shows the D810 to be more similar to the D800E than D800 in this regard, but it's still not the sharpest JPEG engine on the block. We've compiled a list of key differences between the D810 and its predecessor below.

I'm guessing file size? For certain professionals who have to process a lot of files I can imagine the slightly longer prices times could be a turn off compared to a D4s file size. A couple of seconds per photo across a couple of thousand photos could add up to a lot of time.

Well, the higher format usually have advantage of colors / tones. Senscore has good list of aps-c and ff cameras. The D4 series and Df seem to have a lead on D810 and other cameras. Nikon could / should improve on this.

Back in the film days a camera body was a light tight box designed to mount the lens and hold the film flat. The idea was to spend considerably more on the glass because the body didn't contribute as much to the combination. Today the case is altered. A modern camera body can be your darkroom, your film, your computer, and so much more, contributing to the technical image quality. Today, one needs to pay attention to both the camera and the lens as well as many other factors.

@M1963 Lenses also come and go these days and often don't last any longer than camera bodies. Just in the past ten or twelve years there's been three 70-200 f/2.8 Nikkors and that doesn't consider a couple of 80-200 f/2.8 and one 70-200 f/4. People swap them as regularly as camera bodies.

Moreover, modern lenses also have built in computers and software the same as cameras. Many want to stay on top of the technological curve. The facts just don't bear out both of your suggestions. Just a cliche.

Nothing wrong with your advice, just that it's old advice and no longer is supported by what is actually happening in the marketplace, nor should it.

What I am saying is there is a bunch of "pro" bodies on sale second mint etc that has lost so much of their value, go and check how much a mint d810 or like new with warranty cost? Compare that to the price of 1.4 G series lenses.

@instaxmurderer For starters, the two you name aren't very old. I still use a D700 every day in one of my studios and love it. I'm sure I'd be happy with a 5D MkII if I owned one, as well. But, you start backing up a whole lot more, and I think it's harder to maintain IQ sometimes. Then again, the same can be said for some glass over the years. What might have been acceptable, may no longer be.

In the more distant past, a Nikon lens was an all metal and glass design with no electrical contacts whatsoever. Very little to break down over the years. Same with camera bodies. The case is altered with either one these days. That's why I say the old cliche about the lens being more important doesn't always hold true and certainly not in the same way. But, you still get newbies telling other newbies, "Upgrade the glass before the Camera body" or "the lens is for a lifetime, but the body is short term. No longer true, if ever really was.

I welcome DP's exhaustive study of the Mirror/shutter probIems in regards to VR. I have both the D800 and D750 cameras along with the 300mmF4 PF lens. I noted and complained to Nikon a year ago, concerning the VR problems centered around 1/125th second.

My solution did not come from Nikon, but from discussions with a well known Canadian Wildlife photographer. He was not having any VR issues and it boiled down to his use of the extra hand grip for his D750. I purchased the grip for my D750 and found the VR blur to be substantially reduced. It also helped to keep one's hands completely off the lens itself.

My theory is based simply on mass. The lighter the camera/lens combination, the more likely the problem occurs.

I also related the VR problem to the relative loudness of the shutter/mirror mechanism. My quietest camera now is the D500 and D7200. Both are better in this regard. (the D500 seems not to have any issues) The very noisy D800 is the worst culprit.

I've noticed the same problem with my D7000, and it has received a lot of discussion in the forums as well. I've found that the slight delay after the mirror is raised while shooting in Q or Qc mode goes a long way in solving the problem. I'm surprised the reviewers never tried it.

Looking at the "Real World Dynamic RangeImage comparison tool" just below the main structure of the Space Needle there is quite a bit of CA present in the Nikon image provided. Almost none in the SONY shot.There are many places where the detail (phone wires, etc) is missing in the Nikon shot. Obviously the Nikon shot is less noisy but was it well focused? The CA and the lack of detail make it tough to judge.Isn't CA produced by the lens? With 'one button correction' right there in ACR, what was the decision making process in leaving so much CA in place on these otherwise highly processed shots?Is the Nikon shot some kind of Penalty Shot? Would have been interesting to see a more direct comparison provided as well, both bodies set to the same ISO. That way we could have potentially seen the advantage of this 'new feature' more directly and the new sensor vrs the one in the SONY.Omitting the D800 (or D800E) from the DR comparison chart while including the D7100 makes little sense.

I see the CA, but quite a bit? Note, the Sony has CA as well, albeit less, but CA nonetheless. It also has more moire than the D810. This is a test shot. You don't clean up RAW shots when you're trying to see how much noise the camera produces.

As for the missing detail, I'm not seeing it. I'm not doubting you, it's just that both images have more than enough detail for my taste. I have no desire to develop eye strain trying to track down a missing line that is only a few pixels wide in the Sony shot. The Sony shot does appear sharper. Perhaps, the sharpness edge and greater detail might be due to the 42 MP relative to the Nikon's 36MP?

That's my point...If the shot isn't well focused - How can you suggest one is sharper with any value in the assessment?I'm a sharpness fan, noise varies under different conditions and you can always blur the file to make it...Like the Nikon file used in that test!

Problem with mirror/shutter shock is an usual issue in Nikon bodies, and the culprit is the poor VR mechanism. D7000 is another body with this problem that i suffered a lot when i shooted with Nikon. Never had this problem with Canon (far better IS) and now with Olympus.

I hate to say it but the key is to learn how to shoot without VR/IS. Photographers today are entirely too reliant on this technology. You should only use it when absolutely necessary and not as a regular modus operandi.

I've been shot ting with a D810 for over a year now and I can tell you that there's a learning curve. My first ~300 shots were hit and miss regarding sharpness and focus and I've been shooting since the late 70's. I now primarily shoot with primes with no VR and in terms of sharpness and focus I'm at around 80-90% keeper rate.

Well it's really hard to shoot without VR/IS in some low light conditions, as it would mean ISO increase in favor of keeping shutter speed at usable values. Some people don't like to carry tripod either.

It makes sense that the level of sophistication of the top SLRs makes testing a very lengthy process. But when it takes this long, you have to ask what is the purpose? Nikon fans will run out and pre-order any new top-end camera so their decision is made.

And with Sony, I would not be surprised to see them replace camera models faster than DPR can test them.

So is the final score judged on what the camera is like compared to its peers today or what the market was like 2 years ago? Not that it matters that much since the final evaluation is so high, but just wondering because the 5Ds/r and A7RII were not out then, nor was there a Pentax K-1 imminent.

first of all thanks to the talented photographer that push me quickly to see photos than reading the review since the d 810 is at the end of its life cycle!!hope dpr use the same photographer when reviewing the pentax k1.

Why is it at the end of its life cycle when it is unequivocally the best all-around DSLR on the market today? The landscape photography that this camera is capable of doing at ISO 64 has me rethinking my shooting strategy. I had seriously considered giving up FF, but this review makes it clear that would be a mistake. I see the D810 as my goto camera for years to come.

Took Nikon 2 years to wrap up the D800/D800E...Stopped writing flash updates almost right away. (I think we got one).So the D810 may not last as they begin more and more to market high end DSLR's like iPods.

Kaso, this discussion was about "product life cycles" as referenced in the PARENT comment of this little sub thread...All my camera bodies are no longer manufactured and still functional. How'd you miss the point?

Kaso, have tried but can't quite find your point. READ UP THREAD.This is consumer driven content - Or more clearly manufacture and sales driven web site. Antique cameras are nice, but simply not relevant in this context.You did realize this is a two year over due PRODUCT REVIEW offered as 'News' didn't you?So context, DPReview is so slow as to almost be irrelevant to the consuming experience it drives!- and -Nikon, like the rest of them, have adopted a product replacement cadence which has little to do with the functionality of the gear it 'replaces'...This is more of a 'Market Place' driven presentation, which pretty much excludes 'used' gear from the discussion.

I don't think anyone outside of Nikon has a clue where the D810 is in its life cycle. Yes, the D810 was released a mere two years after the release of the D800/e twins. However, two years is a very short interval for releasing professional-level cameras. The D800 twins were released four years after the D700.

I suspect that the early release was, like the D610, due to the early problems with the D800. Nikon, thinking that the model was perhaps poisoned by all the bad publicity rushed to replace them. Fortunately, unlike the D610, they had enough upgrades to justify a new release.

Accordingly, I wouldn't expect to see a D810 replacement for another 2-4 years.

"Autofocus hunts in low light more than expected, and accuracy is reducedNon-central, non-cross-type AF points can hunt in challenging lightLow light, high ISO performance surpassed by peersJPEGs not as sharp or detailed as some competitors"

All cameras 'clip' minimum ISO saturation to cut out the non-linear part of the photon response curve.

However, this does mean there is some leeway to be exploited. If your ISO amplifier has enough range you can start at a lower point and still have enough amplification steps to get past the ISOless point at ISO800.

Looking at Bill Claffs read noise data the D800 ISO 100 has the same RN as the D810 at ISO 64. This would imply the same saturation capacity so I guess what actually happened was that they lost a little fill factor using a dual gain photosite and reduced the sensitivity.

Which is puzzling because this is not reflected in DxOs DR data but it is in Bill's - his data shows DR in the 800 to be identical but offset by 2/3 stops.

In other words DR is the same at ISO 100 as the D810 at ISO 64. Now why is this not the same as DxO?

Did Nikon use a different tone curve to change exposure for middle grey? In other words, did they just recalibrate the ISO?

I think it's not fair for consumers / users to upgrade "a full body" because the manufacturer wanted to R&D the "better body" (D850 or D900), in PC world you change the components you feel are lacking. If GPU is not doing its job well then change GPU. The notion that D800 launched with left focus issues, overall mediocre/bad AF performance (reviewers such as digitalrev and northup saying 5d3 had more consistent AF), then to be replaced by another body with better AF, but still has problems with lens VR.. Did D700 have any of these problems?

Nikon is not the only one milking its customers, but this sort of behavior should be condemned by consumers. Why give greenlight for this type of business practices?

The review says that not all VR lenses have difficulty compensating for mirror/shutter vibration. Can you please share the information on those lenses as well? Which VR lens did you find capable of handling the mirror/ shutter vibration well?

I`m a photojournalist for 40 years. I have D800 and I had D200 and D100 and several other Nikons. Why?Because of Nikon´s ergonomics. That is the main reason pros choose cams. When a pro shoots, he keeps both eyes open. The left eye looks what happens all around the area the camera is aiming at. The right eye checks framing. Together we see a slightly soft area where the framing is sharp in center . (english is my third language sorry bout that.) Keeping the left eye shut means the right gets wet and hard to use. Etc. many reasons.For me the prism of Nikon is sufficiently to the left. Some faces need canon or others.Reading these reviews, very little about ergonomics indeed. If one really uses the camera, the more handling means. Pros very seldom talk about noise etc. I`ve never done it and writers never talk about Word or their keyboard.Couldn`t there be at least one professional photographer in Your team? So the really meaningful things could stand up.

I enjoy my Pentax DSLR for these same reasons. I like the layout or whatever, and something about it just compels me to use it way more than past DSLRs. But l also think Nikon is the king of JPEGs (among other things) and lately I'm thinking at the end of the day IQ above all else is the most important thing to consider. Of course I could start shooting RAW, and I suppose I should, but I think I've been sort of stuck in advanced beginner mode for a long time! But I understand what you're saying!

Ergonomics is huge. To its credit, preview does at least discuss control layout and menus in considerable depth. Actually discussing the stuff that really impacts photography (vs technical minutiae) is why I like photozone's lens reviews. E.g. They take a lot of standardized real world photos (deliberately chosen for challenging attributes, such as corner sharpness, distortion, and so on), discuss differences in samples, show fore and aft bokeh and focus transitions, and so on.

Dpreview has gotten better over the years' the quality of the photography is hugely improved and discussion of important stuff improves all the time. I remember when we used to whine about the lack of low light sample shots, now they always take care to include them.

It is interesting that in DP says D810's ergonomics is great and Ken Rockwell says not and he hates it. I do not care anyway since I am amature and this camera is too heavy for me (street photography and D750 is better fit for me) but interesting thing is that ergonomic is very subjective. Can someone clarify if you can look at it and compare it with D750's different layout!?

A few years ago Rockwell decided to sell Canon instead of Nikon (more people buy Canon than Nikon and he lives on ad referrals) so it's simply a cynical gesture. He works out what sells and then helps people justify to themselves buying it. E.g. He knows pros aren't going to buy high end cameras based on his advice, so he tends to poo poo expensive cameras while raving about (surprise) best selling models.

Oh, and he's careful not to offend Nikon owners where he can avoid it, so once you start drilling into Nikon reviews he stops saying nasty things (about the best selling models).

It's all what you are used to. I shot Canon for years and preferred it to Nikon. After shooting Canon from the days of an EOS-3 up to my last body the 5D2 I really couldn't stand Nikon ergonomics, others prefer Nikon.//no big deal. It comes down to personal preference.

@Tonio - you totally mistaken. Do you want to say that D810 or d750 are not best sellers? Do you want to say that it's better to criticize nikon and praise canon instead of praise both as does rest of the internet reviews? I just don't see any logic in what you say. Besides, what is strange that Rockwell liked better one system than another and then, after new better models and better glass was released, he changed his mind? That just proves he's not a fanboy that likes one system forever and regardless.

Rockwell started writing that he soured on Nikons when they changed the AF selector on the bodies to the far superior button/dial approach (on all Nikon pro and semi-pro bodies since the D7000) from the original thumb lever (as on the D700). He claims not being able to change his focus modes one-handed makes the Nikons inferior to the Canons, despite the fact that he has to menu dive in the Canons to achieve the same results. It all sounded pretty nonsensical to me.

Also, he claimed the D7000, D800s, and subsequent Nikons had a green cast in his photos (he shoots jpeg), and that the minimum magenta tweak he could do made the photos too magenta. I've never heard it anywhere else.

I have no idea why anyone should give any credence to anything Ken Rockwell says; he is just someone that happens to run a popular website, not a professional photographer. As such, his opinion matters just about as much as the average Joe on the street.

Any of the photographs accompanying this article, or Rishi's photographs in the D810 review far surpass anything I've seen from Ken Rockwell.

I totally agree. When I was starting to learn I thought Ken provides good insights but now it is just not making any sense. It is more of a clickbait than reviewing. Very good work DP for all nice in depth reviews which I helps me learn a lot. I myself like photography and do not care much about gears but it doesn't mean I am not a nerd!

I remember when 35 sigma art came, he basically said on his first review / editorial of the lens that the lens is pretty bad. Yeah, one of the best resolving lens for good price is bad.. only in rockwellandia

We all know that this cam is great practically in every aspect.DPR guys please have in mind that if you chose to publish a review, the posting has to be done at most after 3 months after you get the cam in your hands. Lack of personnel is a serious issue, as important and serious as your readers are.

Really? Three months for dedicated 'professionals' working in teams sounds pretty easy.You don't reinvent the wheel for each review, the relevant questions are pretty standard.What on earth could justify TWO YEARS, if I may ask?

To Barney Britton :That brings me to the conclusion that there is a lack of know how in content production work flow management. A rather difficult issue for all editorial organizations involving more than only 5 people.

Does this mean we can look forward to the review of the Canon 1d Mark iii any time soon? (If you remember when DPReview used to have reviews within a month of a camera's release, you must be very old) :-) :-)

Thanks for a good review. I don't have a d 810, but I do have the Sony A7rII which I love. Still, it has been obvious for some time now that the D810 has become the standard by which other cameras are judged...one of the great classics. It has its shortcomings,but it seems to me that we tend to blow the shortcomings out of proportion, and consider less important, the overall achievement that this camera represents. Especially looking back at how wonderfully this camera and the D610 have emerged from the black spot disaster of two years ago. Especially with this review coming as late as it has, when the camera has already proved itself a hundred times over with the user community, if there ever was a camera that deserved a 90 and a gold star, this is it. In fact the whole discussion points to it...a camera so good that all the testing systems had to be redesigned just to measure how good it is.

Great images from Iceland. "we found it to be a nuisance at dim wedding receptions, or romantic candle-lit dinners".

From my personal experience the D810 AF is much better than the D800 in all kinds of light also at weddings where I have found no problems with AF at all. (Note: -2EV corresponds to ISO 6400 at 1/8 sec and f/1.4 which would require a flash anyway)

The AF is just in a different league than the predecessors and can be used very confidently as a sports camera with long burst and very fast action (limited of course by 5 or 7 frames/sec).

The buffer has also increased a lot compared to its predecessors - in 14-bit lossless compressed raw it shoots 28 images in FX-mode and 97 images in DX-mode and 58/100 images in 12-bit compressed.

“High ISO performance surpassed by peers” – yes but by how much - maybe ¼ of a stop? I have compared the D810 to the D3S and they show around the same amount of noise when the D810 files are down sampled to 12 MP.

D810 has good dynamic range sure. But 4EV push for shadows is only for small prints and facebook photos and it shows all the symptoms of over processing. The recent preoccupation with DR is blown way out of proportion.

I have been shooting Nikon, Canon, and Sony side-by-side for 7 + years now.

I love my Nikon D810. The ergonomics on the pro body are also much better than on the D750.

But Nikon ergonomics still lag other manufacturers:

1.) There is no "Quick Menu " , that let's you change all major settings on the rear LCD, using only the rear control pad and "ok " button. I miss this from my Nikon D5300, Canon 7DII, & Panasonic G7.

The limited functions available on the "i" menu are all things that I don't change as a Raw shooter- D-Lightning, etc.

2.) Most function buttons cannot be reassigned, or have a very limited set of possible assignments.

3.) The AF mode and AF area can only be changed using the lever on the front left. Along with the limitations inherited from the mechanical lever in their lenses- like no aperture changes in video. Which is why Canon lenses are so much better for adapting.

The best camera ergonomically I have used is the Canon 7DII. I love the ergonomics!

The canon cameras require you to take your finger off the shutter to use one dial, and pretty much take your eye from the viewfinder to use the other dial. They also have randomly positioned power switches. The rear dial on canon pro bodies is ridiculously awesome for image review (and beloved of pro sports photographers all the more for that reason) but the basic shooting ergonomics of canon bodies irk me.

changing metering mode on d810 requires 2 hands, af settings also.. it's very hard to do this sort of stuff with longer / heavier lenses, because you have to support the lens at all times with left hand unless you want the long lens torque to break the mount eventually. It's very hard and uncomfortable to do while shooting, my GX8 is miles ahead of D810 in this regard, since I can do everything with my right hand only, don't need to move my left hand at all.

I went for the D750 because it's relatively small for a full frame, sitting somewhere between the size of the entry level D5200 and the D7200. In fact, people often mistake it for an entry-level APS-C body once I replaced the strap with something more generic. Something like the D810 and Canon 5DmkIII are just a little too heavy for me because I have an injured right wrist, but still need a workhorse DSLR.

Plus I specialize in low light shooting, and the D750 really shines in that regard. Images look very acceptable even at ISO 12,800, and the AF module is generally very reliable in extremely low light.

@nicolaiecostel I had a bus door slam on it a few years ago. And unfortunately, it was right at the tendons that control the wrist movement. It's healed to a sufficient enough degree that it doesn't bother me normally unless during very stormy weather. But I subject it to repetitive stress due to my desk job, and the way you hold and operate a camera, so I can never regain full strength on my wrist.

Even with the D750, I can't use it with the kit lens or my 80-200 f2.8 for too long or the nerve will start hurting, and I always wear one of those wraps that you use when you have a sprained wrist to help reduce the strain. It's a shame there aren't any left-handed cameras, as I'm a lefty anyway. so it would be nice if I could use a DSLR with my dominant hand instead of putting more strain on the injured one every time I wield my Nikon. It's why I mostly use my Fuji X30 or Sony a6000 unless I really need the low light performance.

Nikon doesn't do IBIS for whatever reason. Neither does Canon though so you're basically left with Pentax. Pentax got its IBIS via cross-licensing with Olympus if I recall correctly (so did Sony) so it could be philosophical (optical correction is better in absolute terms, and also uses less power) or practical (Nikon has no tech to horse trade with Olympus).

Better than expected. On a scale of "worst case to best case", it is definitely closer to "best case", far from "worst case", but not yet all the way to "best case".

My mid-level ~$100 FotodioX works quite well, so this retired hobby'ist has been relieved to find out I didn't need the pricey $400 Metabones. YMMV.

I do find myself using my 6d more than I expected, so my use of the term "defector" isn't all that accurate on my part.

Some of that is being slow to fully adapt to the a7Rii way of doing things. If I had put the 6d aside and was intentional about not using it, I'd be more proficient by now with the a7Rii. That's especially true with flash.

As a Sony user I must admit Nikon, with it's excelling D7200 and D810, almost become my brand of Choice if not because of a7RII's timely arrivel to derive my mind at the last minute. Even then, if oneone with a vast interest into landscape/ doesn't want petty mirrorless/ has a desire to burn through their cash stash, D810 is still my No.1 recommendation.

DSLR have battery advantage, but I don't know if carrying 3 batteries is that big deal. For longer shoots you prolly might need more than 3, but even a small shoulder bag has the space for multiple batteries.

If you set out to go somewhere with photography specifically in mind then having a bunch of charged batteries is no big deal. But if you want a camera you can just rely on to be there and good to go, DSLRs are pretty much unbeatable. For that matter, if you see a shooting opportunity and grab your camera and the battery is dead, by the time you've switched in a fresh battery, the chance may be gone.

By the way, I carry spare batteries for my DSLRs… so are we talking 3 A7 batteries or 10? Also recharging lots of batteries is a pain in the butt.

I think the mirror less folks should design their cameras to work well with the USB bricks that smart phones and tablets have popularized — that will probably make the whole thing moot.

We tried many lenses, mostly Nikon's own lenses. We tried 3 different D810 bodies. I also personally shot with the D810 for about a year, with Nikon 20/1.8, 35/1.8, 85/1.8, and frequently noted focus hunting in low light where my 5D Mark III, and my current a7R II with fast primes, don't.

It's unfortunate, but it's well backed up by our tests, and Wenmei's experience with her D810 as well.

@Rishitalking about Medium Format Quality, the DP2 Merrill really excels here at lowest ISO, and the D8x0 series is for sure then not a match. ;) But only at controlled conditions (enough light, tripod and ISO 100)

Good info in the review folks. Well done.One point - on P14 (the lighthouse shot), the D800 shot is fairly severely back focused. This doesn't make a difference of course when one is purely assessing the noise in flat areas, but if anyone is wanting to compare the sharpness of the non AA filtered D810 against the D800 (as I guess a number of people will), then the position of the default magnification box is going to give a very unrealistic result, as is looking at most of the foreground detail.Check out the shoreline lights on the far right hand side and you'll see what I mean. Might just be worth making a note of that in the text!Cheers.

No worries. It wasn't meant as a criticism (I know how hard it is to get these tests spot on with multiple cameras in a time limited situation!). I just thought that a little note somewhere on the page pointing it out might save some potential issues as I bet there are still some D800 users who wonder what the sharpness increase would be if they switched to a D810. That actually was the main reason I scanned around that particular scene - more than checking for the DR increase to be honest.

@Rishi: I imagine getting high dynamic range is hard, if not impossible in a studio scene. I appreciate the new high-dynamic range test, for this very reason. Most people don't seem to understand the high ISO test tells much about shadows in lower ISO images. Thanks much.

Pretty much what I have found in use: High ISO not that good and AF in poor light not that good.Otherwise a nice machine. Could be made better by removing video and jpeg capabilities and making it a RAW only stills machine.

I've never found the presence of functions that I personally never use and can mainly be accessed through menus to be a nuisance. It's not as if they add bulk or weight to the camera, and as long as they don't manifest themselves in obnoxiously placed buttons and dials, what's the problem? I just don't use them.

@Kiwisnap: Now I get you. Better means cheaper for you. I'd actually like cameras to be be modular. Orde a basic body shape, add components and functions to taste, end up with a total price. Much like you'd order a new car these days. Doesn't necessarily mean cheaper though, probably adds to the price.

Yes that would work. Better is not necessarily cheaper - just more use. I never shoot video. I don't want to ever shoot video. Likewise, why would a video guy want a stills camera? Specialisation is better than compromise.Nikon pro bodies used to be modular and I would love them to return to that model.

Problem with Pixel Shift is that it doesn't work well when there are elements in your scene that are moving. Like water and trees- common to landscapes. The results look worse than the blur (often a creative choice even) that results from movement in longer exposures with traditional cameras. So comparing to Pixel Shift isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison (and yet we did it anyway in the K-1 dynamic range analysis).

Rishi, the K-1 supports motion correction for the Pixel Shift mode, and also keeps the 4 RAW files. This means that even if in-camera motion correction is not successful (and reports are that it is successful 90% of the time), you can always open the 4 files in different layers in your image editor and "paint away" any movement by only leaving one layer visible in problematic areas.

The end result is that you'd still have the superb DR and sharpness of this mode, without any visible motion related issues. This is pretty much unparalleled by any other FF camera - with or without post processing.

So what's stopping me from taking 4 exposures with the D810 @64 and combining them in post to get a superior result to the K1? I get that it does it in body, but like most "extra" camera functions, wouldn't it be better to do it on a computer? I like the K1, but not sure why the PixelShift mode is getting such big fanfare. Maybe someone can explain?

Prognathous - interesting name btw, I still don't understand how it would be sharper, as post processing is highly variable, and if I have 4 perfectly sharp exposures, how would Pixel Shift be "sharper"? I appreciate that Pentax has a motion correction system built-in, but I suspect it's as reliable as the HDR layering or auto-pano implementation that most cameras and phones have built in as well. Which goes back to my initial thought, wouldn't it just be better to do "Pixel Shift" on a computer, where you have full control over different aspects of the image, it's alignment, and could possibly have more DR if you shoot a bracket of different exposures (-1,0,+1). To me Pixel Shift seems more of a convenience rather than some revolution of IQ that some are making it out to be. That's not to knock on the K1, it's an amazingly priced and very capable full-frame camera. But comparing its composite abilities to another camera's single exposure capabilities doesn't seem fair to me so far.

Pixel Shift is "sharper" because there's no interpolation. A Bayer sensor produces color by averaging adjacent pixels. This averaging lowers edge sharpness as there's no clean separation between between adjacent pixels of totally different color or brightness--it produces a slight blur.

Pixel Shift allows even adjacent pixels to be of a totally different color and brightness and still show up as unique. This means an adjacent totally black and a totally white pixel will have a sharp edge difference, hence the increase in edge sharpness, and also resolution. That's why so many are interested in it.

It does, that's why so many photographers who own Sigma cameras are interested in it (I'm one). For certain situations it will give us the best of many "worlds," much higher DR (and much faster processing) than any Sigma camera along with pixel equivalent resolution. There are still some differences, between them, though, as the Foveon chip produces its own unique color palate.

You can increase resolution of capture by taking multiple shots even with a D810, slightly moving the camera in between exposures, then using super-resolution software. It looks for inter-pixel detail due to almost certain registration shifts from just jostling the camera on a tripod. Check out PhotoAcute.

That said, more people will use it if it's just built into the camera, and Pixel Shift has really impressed us so far.

One thing that's odd: if they've gotten electronic shutter to work with Pixel Shift, why is it not available outside of Pixel Shift?

And thanks for the info - I see artifacts in all the examples in that post, though sometimes it's subtle. I'm not sure why the clouds have artifacts - they should've been frozen over the time-scale of the Pixel Shift.

Rishi - Yeah, this technique is what I was referring to. Yet apparently the K1 has a way to emulate a fovean with a Bayer. I find that hard to believe. I still think it's just an in-camera process of composing photos together, something anyone can do on a computer with the right software. Similar to how Panoramas or HDR is built in nowadays - even then you can still achieve better, more tailored results on a computer. Mike tried to explain it, but he ended up explaining a fovean. There's no way you can do what he explained on a normal Bayer sensor. So, unfortunately, I still don't see what the commotion is about.

No, you can't duplicate it in software, the Bayer averaging has already taken place before it's saved to the raw file. Also the accuracy of the Foveon emulation is directly dependent on the accuracy of the Pixel Shift, which seems pretty good in the K1.

Pro - yeah, so alluding back to my original statement. What's stopping me from taking 4 exposures with a camera with a better base DR than the K1 and super Rezzing it to get a higher quality result? Pixel Shift still seems to be an inbody implementation to something I can do better in post (like HDR / Panos). What's the hype about?

Mike - It's either a Bayer Sensor or not. If the K1 is then it's still averaging pixel data in each of those 4 exposures that Pro and the link from Pentax are referring to. Reading through the link, Pixel Shifts seems like a super resolution composition that one can do in more/less Photoshop, but it's in Camera. This is definitely not at the same level as Fovean, which achieves its result in a single exposure and in the method you think the Pentax is doing it in.

@Random Photographer:If I understand correctly, it is _not_ averaging pixel data from all four exposures. For each pixel, it's taking the blue-filtered data from one exposure, the red-filtered data from another, and the green-filtered data from the other two. So like a Foveon, it doesn't need to interpolate to fill in the missing channels for any given pixel.

If you just take four normal exposures, you might get some noise reduction due to averaging, but you still would not be getting complete color information for each pixel -- you would still have to demosaic, because each pixel would only have ever been exposed through one color of the Bayer filter. And that interpolation happens in your raw developer before you can edit the image.

So how would one be able to recreate the pixel shift effect -- exposing each pixel through _all three_ colors of the color filter array -- in post?

Scintilla - now that makes a little more sense. I guess you could replicate it by placing RGB color filters in front of the lens during each black and white exposure and somehow combine that at post. But even then some interpolation might come into play.

@Osvaldo Cristo:Whom was that reply directed at? I don't think I saw anyone saying that other cameras don't support multi-exposure that can be used to reduce noise. Indeed, other Pentax cameras have already been able to do that for years.

But what the D810 can't do with that is get complete color information for each pixel, without interpolation. The K-1's pixel shift mode can.

I actually don't mind the wait. As a matter of fact, I hope this review sets a precedent for DPReview examining some cameras that have been out for a while, but are still relevant enough to merit a review. This type of review would certainly be of interest to those of us who don't buy the newest camera immediately after it comes out.

I immediately dismissed it two years ago based on size, cost and megapixels I don't need. I used one for the first time yesterday, playing around with a friend's D810. I never had any interest in owning one. But that is no longer the case.

Excellent review, but how does this change the shooting technique for an owner? I have found that my D810 seems to overexpose about ⅓ stop with my Zeiss 35 1.4. Maybe a bit more. but I am always able to bring detail out of the shadows when I shoot with a minus ⅓-⅔ stop adjustment - quite a lot of detail, actually. Of course at that point my ISO is well over 64...

So G7 and GX8 hang for shuttershock. Because otherwise they were just stellar in their class. Silver. Both have workarounds, but alas....

Nikon has shuttershock too with workarounds. Yet it gets cold. While I understand we cannot just compare one cam over another it is clear shuttershock has caused the Panny's to get silver. Wonder how Nikon gets away with this...

I think we also need to consider that something like a D810 is going to be used professionally as a workhorse, while for the Panasonic GX8, it is more of enthusiast level camera. Doesn't mean the latter isn't a fantastic camera, but people who buy something like a D810 or 5DmkiIII aren't primarily buying it to shoot video, and might put the camera through some rough use.

And I guess despite having a lot of overlaps, we still judge mirrorless and DSLRs by different criteria. A mirrorless that can squeeze off 450 shots on a single battery would get a lot of plus points. But on a DSLR, that's nothing to shout about.

"I think we also need to consider that something like a D810 is going to be used professionally as a workhorse, while for the Panasonic GX8..."An expensive pro body should perform better and be held to a much higher standard. If a consumer grade compact can rival a bigger, spendier pro body in any way, I think that's quite an achievement and should be reason to mark down the pro and up the consumer grade.

Well, as stated several times over, the D810 is over two years old by this point, and although pretty high up on the scale, it's not Nikon's flagship. It's hard to have a direct comparison with Panasonic's flagship mirrorless which is current generation.

Something like the D810 or 5DmkIII aren't known for cutting edge features. They're intended to stand up to a lot of abuse as a workhorse that can continue to deliver professional level image quality for years. Till today, I still see a lot of pro photogs using a 5D(mkII) and D700/D300 or D3S because they're known to be reliable. For press work, photogs rarely need more than 12 megapixels.

The main selling point of a DSLR is ruggedness. Some people will still buy a used 5D today despite it being released in 2005 because the images at low ISO still look really good today. But it's unlikely anyone is going to get a first generation M4/3 camera..

More about gear in this article

When SpaceX's Falcon 9 took to the skies like a UFO last Friday, photographer Jesse Watson was ready to capture the incredible sight in timelapse. His footage of the launch is far and away the most beautiful we've seen so far.

The D850 was just announced, and by all accounts it's shaping up to be a very impressive DSLR. But should you upgrade your current camera? In this article, we've broken down the D850's main selling points compared to several popular models.

Latest in-depth reviews

After a rare Seattle snowstorm finally subsided, DPReview editor Jeff Keller was able to escape the snow and spend some time with the impressive Fujifilm X-T30, a camera that offers a lot of bang for the buck.

The EF-M 32mm F1.4 is a welcome addition to Canon's APS-C mirrorless lens lineup. It's a good performer all-around and enjoyable to use on the EOS M50, and we hope to see more like it introduced to the EF-M range.

We don't often get excited about $900 cameras, but the Fujifilm X-T30 has really impressed us thus far. Find out what's new, what it's like to use and how it compares to its peers in our review in progress.

The S1 and S1R are Panasonic's first full-frame mirrorless cameras so there's a plenty to talk about. We've taken a look at the design and features of both cameras and have some initial impressions, as well.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

The Ricoh GR series has long been a favorite of street photographers, and the latest iteration - the GR III - brings a new sensor, redesigned lens, in-body stabilization and on-sensor phase detection. We spent some time with a pre-production model in London and have some initial impressions to share.

Ross Lowell was a man of many talents who had more than 25 patents to his name, created a lighting company and created gaffer tape, a staple in the camera bags of photographers and cinematographers the world over.

Ricoh's new WG-6 is the company's latest waterproof camera, with a 20MP sensor, 28-140mm equiv. lens and the ability to go 20m/65ft underwater. If you need something that's both crushproof and chemical-resistant, there's the G900, which is designed for industrial use.

At its Galaxy Unpacked event, Samsung has officially unveiled the Galaxy S10 and S10+ with a triple rear-camera array, as well as a more basic S10e model with a dual main camera unit. As expected, the S10 series' display is the center of attention with a hole-punch style front-facing camera embedded in the screen.

Samsung wasted no time unveiling the Galaxy Fold at its Unpacked event today – a foldable device with a 4.6" display when folded, and 7.3" display when unfolded. The device contains a total of six cameras – three on the back, two inside and one front-facing camera.

After a rare Seattle snowstorm finally subsided, DPReview editor Jeff Keller was able to escape the snow and spend some time with the impressive Fujifilm X-T30, a camera that offers a lot of bang for the buck.

Given that it uses the same sensor and processor as the X-T3, it's no surprise that the Fujifilm X-T30 is capable of producing some excellent photos. We took a pre-production X-T30 all over the Seattle area and have plenty of photos for your viewing pleasure.

Tamron has announced three new full-frame lenses slated to launch in the middle of 2019: an SP 35mm F1.4 Di USD and 35-150mm F2.8-4 Di VC OSD for DSLRs, as well as an ultra-wide 17-28mm F2.8 Di III RXD for Sony E-mount cameras.

The EF-M 32mm F1.4 is a welcome addition to Canon's APS-C mirrorless lens lineup. It's a good performer all-around and enjoyable to use on the EOS M50, and we hope to see more like it introduced to the EF-M range.

Panasonic is well known for including impressive video features on its cameras. In this article, professional cinematographer Jack Lam explains one killer feature the company could add to its S series that would shake up the industry – and it all comes down to manual focus.